This one got pretty messed up. I think it has the potential for a great discussion, but it's sure not going that way.

I have read the entire thread. Carefully. I see Zats point in asking everyone to do the same. It may have come accross as arrogant, but there's a lot of points he made that are being read into. Just one example is that it seems many are assuming that when he says "scientists carry blame" he means "the scientific community as a whole." From what I can determine, he really means that there is a certain contingent of scientists that carry a large amount of blame for the "mess."

I think that the "mess" does indeed need to be defined. I follow what you mean by the mess Zat, but it really hasn't been made that clear.

I don't agree that scientists should hold the #1 spot, but at the same time, I do understand Zats argument. My problem with it is that individual responsibility is more relevant. Some of those individuals that contributed to the mess are indeed scientists, but there are many others as well. So we need to look at the individual, and the capacity with which they affect society as a whole instead of considering the impact their particular profession or standing in the community has.

It is much like blaming all of the soldiers who ever were for all of the wars that ever were.
There would be no war if they were just moral enough to say "Hell no, we won't go."
While true, it is not a very useful truism. Usually, the penalty for this is death or imprisonment.

We can blame the politicians for there moral turpitude as well. They should just say no to using the technology that the amoral scientists came up with.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(28-01-2012 12:14 PM)Stark Raving Wrote: This one got pretty messed up. I think it has the potential for a great discussion, but it's sure not going that way.

Stark’s intelligent comment encouraged me to come back with one more attempt to clarify what it is I said and what it is I did not say.

Most of all, the word ‘blame’ I used was intended as a shortcut to saying “Primary (but not the only) cause of the planet’s problems”.

I was accused of not suggesting solutions, and when I did, even providing a link, it was ignored with many other things I said.

So, here it is, in point form, for easy digestion to those who do not like reading long posts, of everything I am deeply convinced of in this debate. All my arguments are now in one place with a lot of supporting evidence quoted in previous posts.

1. Inventing/developing providing weapons of mass destruction
2. Inventing/developing providing tools & gadgets for spying on foreign and own citizens
3. Inventing/developing providing tools & gadgets for crowd control and turture
4. Serving in think tanks to deliberately lie to the public about real dangers
5. Prostituting their brains to serve Wall Street with insane new gambling schemes
6. Providing methods of psychological warfare against dissenters of their own people
7. Helping the Big Pharmaceuticals and Big Industries to maximize their profits and cause death and misery by falsifying test results and lying in courts.
8. Lobbying (bribing/blackmailing/misleading) congress to relax/cancel safeguards protecting the public good.
9. Many university professors are teaching to the military/corporate/religious agenda and liberal professors are often fired or muzzled.

What I did say:

1. Without the irresponsible scientists we absolutely would not have weapons of mass destruction threatening planet-wide survival
2. Without scientists in the think tanks spewing out garbage justifications and doubt, the public would be better informed (if the journalists were allowed to inform them)
3. Without a universally understood ethical code for scientists, we will always have the irresponsible ones who will prostitute their talents in the service of greed and ambition
4. With the irresponsible scientists, selling us out to corporate and political interests, the world is sliding toward major catastrophe of more wars, more poverty, environmental degradation, fast approaching climate change disaster and ultimately, destruction of the planet and most living species.

What I did not say:

1. That science is bad
2. That all scientists are bad
3. That science has not produced marvelous improvements to human life
4. That many scientists did not warn the public
5. That many scientists did not refuse to do harm
6. That there are no other segments of society to blame

1. Inventing/developing providing weapons of mass destruction
2. Inventing/developing providing tools & gadgets for spying on foreign and own citizens
3. Inventing/developing providing tools & gadgets for crowd control and turture
4. Serving in think tanks to deliberately lie to the public about real dangers
5. Prostituting their brains to serve Wall Street with insane new gambling schemes
6. Providing methods of psychological warfare against dissenters of their own people
7. Helping the Big Pharmaceuticals and Big Industries to maximize their profits and cause death and misery by falsifying test results and lying in courts.
8. Lobbying (bribing/blackmailing/misleading) congress to relax/cancel safeguards protecting the public good.
9. Many university professors are teaching to the military/corporate/religious agenda and liberal professors are often fired or muzzled.

You are defining 'scientist' so broadly as to have it nearly devoid of meaning. You seem to include anyone with scientific or engineering education.
You have not supported your claims well enough to be anywhere near convincing.
You come across as ranting at industrial/technological civilization in general. The only solution to the ills by your analysis is to do away with technology.

As I said, I find your argument shallow in the extreme.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.